Yes We Can

When President Obama and the other world leaders gather to discuss the current global economic crisis, they must also focus on the threat of catastrophic global climate change. These two crises should not be regarded as separate issues. Many of the causes and some of the solutions are the same. Both were preventable. Both are, in President Obama's words, "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices". Equally with both, it is the poorest and the most vulnerable who will invariably suffer the most. I call upon President Obama to provide global leadership and deliver "the change we need." The time has come to put the future of people first.

Nearly three years ago Gordon Brown proclaimed: "I believe that the world needs a new paradigm that moves the environmental challenge to the centre of policy. ... For too long too many governments thought their objectives began and ended with economic prosperity and jobs." Given the severe recession in this country, does this now mean that the future of the environment will be as bleak as our current economy? The Prime Minister's rhetoric sadly illustrates his failure of leadership on both of these vital issues.

The warnings from our most respected scientists are loud and clear, yet government leaders continue to ignore the scale of the threat. According to many scientists, we have less than a decade left to address the issue of climate change before we reach the "tipping point", or the point of no return. It is the responsibility of leaders everywhere to fully understand this problem if they are to meet the challenges before us. Failure to act effectively is likely to precipitate cataclysmic changes that may obliterate life on earth. As Dr. Rowan Williams put it, "the ultimate tragedy... (would be if) humanity gradually choked, drowned, or starved by its own stupidity".

In these times of economic crisis, we need to be aware of the economic consequences of climate change. The reality is that failure to act will be far more costly and damaging to the economy over the long term than acting immediately. The costs of acting soon are manageable, especially when compared with the projected loss of human life, natural disasters, and economic collapse in the coming decades. With the current financial meltdown and global economic recession, we failed to heed the signs before it was too late and we are now forced to deal with the consequences and bear the burden of bailouts. We are making the same mistake with our environment. But when this system breaks, it might not even be possible to fix.

Investing in renewable energy and clean technologies should be seen as a key part of the solution to both the current global economic and climate crises. In Professor Nicholas Stern's words, "investments in ...(these) technologies could provide sustainable and well-founded economic growth, in contrast to the recent booms, and eventual busts, driven by flaky dot-com ventures or inflated house prices." The work of Global Urban Development's Climate Prosperity Project, Professor Stern, and many other eminent economists have demonstrated how investing in renewable energy and clean technologies can generate substantial and sustainable economic growth worldwide, increasing jobs, incomes, efficiency and productivity, and at the same time safeguarding our future.

To quote Oscar Wilde, the current financial mess clearly demonstrates the danger of "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing." The time has come to recognize the true economic asset value of our natural resources -- rain forests, biodiversity, oceans, barrier reefs, and much more. The long-term economic value of our global ecosystem are best enhanced through innovation, efficiency and conservation, not reckless exploitation.

We also need to address the question of "climate justice". Developing countries suffer most from the impacts of climate change, although they have not been the primary cause of the problem.

Justice is the litmus test for any measure designed to combat climate change. This includes justice between countries, justice within countries, justice between generations, and justice for Mother Nature. Climate justice means providing poorer countries access to modern clean technologies to help them raise their living standard by embarking on a renewable energy revolution.

The challenges that we face are daunting but not insurmountable. Last year President Obama called climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and more recently he said "We cannot afford politics as usual -- not at a moment when the energy challenge we face is so great and the consequences of inaction are so dangerous. We must act quickly and we must act boldly to transform our entire economy -- from our cars and our fuels to our factories and our buildings." His "New Energy for America Plan" is an important step in the right direction. However, his plan may not be sufficient. Given the scale of the potential disaster before us, he has no choice but to rapidly move towards a sustainable economy based on Climate Prosperity.

G-20 leaders must now show the "unity of purpose." We need a broad global consensus on vital political and financial measures to implement drastic emissions reduction targets combined with efforts to restore the planet's ecosystems. The earth is perilously close to climate chaos that threatens to spiral way out of control. If the wealthy industrialised countries want to limit the rise in the average global temperature, they must commit to legally binding reductions of 80% greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. Current pledges of 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020 are inadequate given the gravity of the current situation:

Additional policy actions are needed. I propose these simple solutions as part of the road map leading to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen.

• The criteria for the Copenhagen agreement should be based on scientific facts, not on political expediency and vested interests. This time we must not allow governments to pay mere "lip service" to any new agreement. Government leaders must implement effective solutions.
• All governments must also subscribe to and support the work of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), conceived by environmental leader Hermann Scheer, championed by the German Government and endorsed by seventy seven countries.
• Wealthy countries must live up to their responsibilities and set up an international investment fund that guarantees technology transfer from the Global North to the Global South. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, at least one trillion dollars must be invested over the next decade to enable developing countries to expand their economies through renewable energy, resource efficiency, and clean technologies. Production of these new technologies will create millions of new jobs and business opportunities in rich and poor countries alike. The best way for the G-20 leaders to address the current economic crisis is to invest in a globally sustainable future -- an economic and environmental "win-win" solution for the entire world.
• All countries must transform taxes on energy into taxes on emissions, promoting the supply and demand of emission-free energy.
• We must embark upon a global programme of forest protection and reforestation. Planting 10 million square kilometres of new forests will help stabilise the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere at 350 parts per million.
• We must not look to nuclear energy as the panacea. Should we combat the dangers of climate change by ignoring the dangers of nuclear power? There are far too many environmental hazards and financial burdens associated with nuclear power plants. These include security risks, the volume of nuclear waste and the lack of safe disposal methods, excessive water usage, and finite supplies of uranium, massive construction and maintenance costs, radiation and cancer and other harmful human and ecological impacts.
• We must establish a new international initiative combining biosphere protection and restoration, in order to reverse the decline of biodiversity.
• We must provide financial incentives that empower households and businesses to invest in renewable energy and resource efficiency. For example, "Feed-in Tariff" legislation in Germany has created a quarter of a million new jobs and enabled millions of people to benefit from renewable technologies.
• Governments and Corporations whose practices put the environment and human life at risk must be held accountable for their actions.

The world situation is deteriorating faster than we previously anticipated. Recent studies show that even the most alarming predictions by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 were far too conservative. In Professor Stern's words "Global emissions of greenhouse gases are growing more quickly than projected, the ability of the planet to absorb those gases now appears lower than was assumed, the potential increases in temperatures due to rising gas concentrations seem higher, and the physical impacts of a warming planet are appearing at a faster rate than expected."

At this critical juncture in history it is well to remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln: "You cannot avoid the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today." President Obama has inherited a daunting array of global issues that urgently require his leadership. The world economic recession, Climate change, wars terrorism, epidemics, genocide, world hunger and the poverty that threatens millions of people, to name just a few. His commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. to 1990 levels by 2020 will not be enough. Winston Churchill declared on the eve of the Second World War: "The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience and delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." President Obama, your decisions in addressing the challenges of climate change may have far greater global impact than the actions of any political leader in world history, literally affecting the very survival of human civilisation. You said "yes we can" and now we have the audacity to hope.

Comments

[CTC123]

Consider the Connection to:
POSITIVE Attitude(s)
Great Posts, Everyone

[CTC123]

Consider the Connection to:
Environmental Communication
3 PHOTOS = 3000 WORDS
The NEGATIVE Economic Pyramid (The cost of everything, and the value of nothing "CTC3").
Please Google Search:
CTC123GREEN

Great article, Bianca Jagger

[racetoinfinity]

Amen, and thank you! I hope this post is widely read. It's past time for arguing. Interdependent Coordinated Action by as many countries as possible based on scientific evidence is imperative! I love your quote from Oscar Wilde, also, which can serve as an epitaph (I hope) to the ego-bound, one-dimensional money "masters of the universe" traders, banksters and assorted hedge fund thieves).

[Guitarsandmore]

Excellent, well written article. Could not have said it better myself.

Just to take a few pot shots at the nay sayers:

Efficiency is not required, green is required.

The goal is to create energy without doing any harm to anyone or anything past, present, or future. If it takes a hundred million solar roofs instead of a few dozen nuclear power plants then so be it. You have to have a roof over your head anyway, let it be solar. In the long run it will not cost you a penny more.

Make the house more air tight and efficient at retaining heat or cold? you bet! No sacrifice needs to made in that area. Keep the house toasty warm in the winter with more insulation and triple pane windows. you bet!

Thank you Bianca for writing such a great article!

Please write more!

[WyomingJack]

Bravo Bianca! Excellent article. Excellent call to action.

[Arielman]

People seem to think global cooling resulting from volcanic dust spread high in the atmosphere is good. It causes death which requires rebirth. That "rebirth" from the American example I am familiar with, after Mount Tambora in Indonesia exploded in 1815 there came after a "Year Without Summer" ("...Poverty Year or Eighteen hundred and froze to death, was 1816, in which severe summer climate abnormalities destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the American Northeast and eastern Canada. Historian John D. Post has called this "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world." - Wikipedia)

On Long Island, NY a "New Village" was started and a church now on the US National Register of Historic Places was constructed in the Federal Style in what is today Centereach. It had been recorded that the 100 "mechanics" those that built ships in Setauket, had to wear their coats all summer. Some of the ship-building carpentry went into it but very subtle, perhaps its ornament not permitted, referring to a frugal time when "truck farming" began there and wood used for heating, in short supply after the War of 1812. Baltimore, Maryland became a "middleman" between the North, which had no crops and the South which did manage to avoid the frost which killed most crops.

Not an event I'm looking forward to or it's opposite: crops "cooked" in the ground by rising temperatures.

[Arielman]

Caliban: "The day when I begin to feel that everything is lost, just let me get hold of a, few barrels of your [Ariel's] infernal powder and as you fly around up there in your blue skies you'll see this island, my inheritance, my work, all blown to smithereens . . . and, I trust, Prospero and me with it"

The Tempest - William Shakespeare

Noted author and scientist Aldous Huxley gave a lecture on his deathbed. In it he states the "The Tempest" was actually Shakespeare's first play and preceded all the others though added to the list at the end due to its controversial descriptions.

[CelticMajic]

1) Please tell us what the goal is in terms of outcome not in terms of sacrifice. To what ultimate end are we to impoverish millions?
2) The CO2 from the volcano erupting in AK makes human contribution seem puny if not insignificant.
3) If the developed world reduced by 50% China and India would replace it in less than a year and even then compared to 2 above it is miniscule.

[joebaggadonuts]

I guess someone has to answer your questions. It's not that I agree, necessarily, with all of Bianca's conclusions, but I do agree with the direction she wants us to take.

Re 1: First off, there are billions of humans impoverished today, Bianca's proposal is not to impoverish more. And the goal was pretty clearly stated. Saving us from extinction and our society from disintegration.

Re 2: If your name means anything, you might presume that the eruption of a volcano is Gia's response to our treatment of her. If not, recognize that we are now over 6.7 billion, headed for 12 billion in 2040. If you don't think that all of us driving and flying and burning coal, natural gas, and oil for power to better our lives, and burning wood for subsistence living don't make a difference, you are an idiot.

Re 3: China and India are in this with us. They need to understand it and participate too. Maybe if they work with us we can save ourselves.

[ClarcKing]

The phenomenon of Global Warming and the resultant catastrophic predictions may be a hoax. Let's not do anything rash. Embedded in the philosophical and political rhetoric of environmentalists that profess the ultimate care and concern for mother earth and humanity is a economic and population contraction policy. They hate the population's brainpower, human progress and your children.

[melmoid]

Dumping millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere each year for a hundred years isn't rash? Even my city charges to dump at the landfill. I don't hate human progress or my grand children. I wish we had a lot more human progress. But I did study ecology and learned about carrying capacity, species population curves and limiting factors. There is a great deal of nonsense in your post ClarcKing including a blanket generalization about people who are concerned about the environment.

[silk olive]

Bizarre, out of touch comment. ClarcKing and his ilk are the same people who think the Earth is flat and that technological advancement must be equated with environmental destruction. Most who've educated themselves on this topic understand that the sophisticated, sustainable practices of using wind and electricity (to name just 2) energy are the type solutions that will carry us out of this mess. If its not too late. It we want a livable planet for our children, our children's children and beyond, 99% of climatologists agree: the time to act is now.

[WyomingJack]

ClarKing, who specifically "hate(s) the population's brainpower, human progress and [my] children?" I want to know their names and on what streets do they live so I can ride right over and give them a piece of my mind.

One name will do ClarKing. Please tell me one environmentalists that hates the population's brainpower. Name one environmentalist that hates human progress. Show me evidence that there is one environmentalist anywhere in this world that hates my kids.

You regurgitate these things you hear talk show hosts spew out without any evidence to back them up. Now's your chance to lend some credibility to your (borrowed) contention.

[joebaggadonuts]

Rush, is that you?

[NoVaBudgeteer]

Good article - but a couple of problems:
(1) Nuclear energy is FAR more efficient than any of the other renewable sources with regard to the investment to energy output. We can't take Nuclear off the table until there is another viable option - solar, wind, etc all have high investment costs and long term payback - they are options but not equal options.
(2) You pointed out what all governments must do but you didn't mention that on a personal level this will require sacrifices as well - - if the best spot to put a wind farm is off the coast of Martha's Vineyard then that is where it should go. Folks lose interest in renewable energy if it means sacrificing the view from their beach house. Politics and personal interests will trump good intentions for the planet.
(3) We have to be transparent on who is making money from this. Al Gore became a big proponent only after he left office - why? It is unfair to expect people to support your issues when behind the scenes you are making lots of money from it.

Renewable energy is where we need to go - first as a nation and then the rest of the world. We have to move first and the world will follow. We can't expect developing countries to voluntarily change what they are doing if we haven't worked it out amongst ourselves.

[TJM2]

You're completely wrong about Al Gore and the environment. His book came out in 1992, before he was VP and his involvement dates back to the late 70s.
That's a Rush LimbaughGlenn Beck claim, think what the they said: he "probably" invested,etc. meaning they have no idea but it makes it sound good to try and smear a leading advocate with some pecuniary interest.
If you want to listen to those guys, listen more closely, they're playing you and you fell for it, They're smooth, you?

[melmoid]

Correct. Al Gore wrote a very good book called Earth in the Balance when he was a senator. As a scientist I thought it was very well done particularly for a politician. Al even sent me a personal note after I commented on his book in a letter. What he said in his book has come true with a vengeance. Perhaps these guys don't go to specialists when sick since after all they have a pecuniary interest in their treatment. Of course Al Gore should get a royalty on his books. As an author I can tell you he won't make much unless the books sell well. I thought these Al Gore critics believed in the free market.

[WyomingJack]

Since when did nuclear energy become viable? Did I miss something? It is not clean. It is not safe. It is not cost efficent. It is not renewable. But don't let facts get in your way.

As for who is making money on all this, look at how much money is being lost because of the direct economic consequences caused by the climate changes.

The idea of moving forward is to move forward, not backwards. If we needed brain-dead ideas from the past we could always dig up Sec. James G. Watt.

[wallyone]

Speaking of the Bush legacy, I think that in 100 years he will be most vilified for not doing anything to prevent global warming when he had the opportunity to really make a difference in pulling us back from the tipping point.

[RevBookburn]

Bush did do something about it..he fast-tracked the road to greater destruction. He truly deserves prosecution more than anyone else in this nation. Great article Bianca! Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[dobermanmacleod]

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008

[melmoid]

I don't think nuclear energy should be dismissed so quickly as part of the solution--­particular­ly small scale reactors of advanced design. It is also possible to close the fuel cycle to a much greater extent than we have -- see France. I also don't think the nation will ever commit to the type of intensive forestry you are proposing. Many colleges are closing their forestry departments even as we speak. But the major problem is the general scientific illiteracy in the populace. There is a very active climate change denier network in the land that has an outsized political influence. Combine this with an aversion to higher taxes and I think a carbon tax or cap and trade system will be impossible to put in place politically. Unless a charge is placed on dumping into the commonwealth of air, no real progress will be made. All of the other things mentioned in the post will be just working at the margins. I sympathize but I am not optimistic.

[PlugINCarsRule]

There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. It costs the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.We have so much available to us such as wind and solar. Let's spend some of those bail out billions and get busy harnessing this energy. Create cheap clean energy, badly needed new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our nation at large! There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com